Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It informs that the delete is safe and recoverable, and mentions a write-tier requiring possible manager approval, which is valuable context about side effects and authorization. It does not detail all consequences, but the core behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: it states the purpose, the usage trigger, and the approval note in only a few lines. No extraneous information is present, and key details are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple archiving operation, the description covers the main action, the identification method, and approval requirements. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that at least one of tactic_id or tactic_title is required (though implied), and not mentioning edge cases like no match found. Overall it is sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description only restates 'Identify by title or ID' which the parameter descriptions already convey. It adds no new meaning about how to choose between tactic_id and tactic_title or what happens if both are provided, so it provides minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Archive a Playbook') and the resource, with the qualifier 'safe delete — recoverable' adding precision. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create/update/run playbook by specifying the retire use case, making the intent unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Use when the operator wants to retire a playbook' and repeats this in the Routing line, giving a clear condition for when to invoke. It doesn't list alternatives or explicitly state when not to use, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that the guidance is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.